M07_COPI1396_13_SE_C07.QXD 10/16/07 9:18 PM Page 298 298 CHAPTER 7 Syllogisms in Ordinary Language 7.7 Disjunctive and Hypothetical Syllogisms Propositions are categorical when they affirm or deny the inclusion or exclu- sion of categories or classes. Syllogisms, arguments consisting of two prem- ises and a conclusion, are called categorical when the propositions they contain are categorical. Up to this point our analysis has been of categorical syllogisms only. However, a syllogism may contain propositions that are not categorical. Such cases are not called categorical syllogisms but are instead named on the basis of the kind of propositions they contain. Here we look briefly at some other kinds of propositions and the syllogisms to which they give rise. The categorical propositions with which we are familiar are simple in the sense that they have a single component, which affirms or denies some class relation. In contrast, some propositions are compound, in that they contain more than one component, each of which is itself some other proposition. Consider first the disjunctive (or alternative) proposition. An example is “She was driven either by stupidity or by arrogance.” Its two components are “she was driven by stupidity” and “she was driven by arrogance.” The dis- junctive proposition contains those two component propositions, which are called its disjuncts. The disjunctive proposition does not categorically affirm the truth of either one of its disjuncts, but says that at least one of them is true, allowing for the possibility that both may be true. If we have a disjunction as one premise, and as another premise the denial or contradictory of one its two disjuncts, then we can validly infer that the other disjunct in that disjunction is true. Any argument of this form is a valid disjunctive syllogism. A letter writer, critical of a woman nominated for high office by President George W. Bush, wrote: In trying to cover up her own illegal peccadillo or stonewall her way out of it, she was driven either by stupidity or arrogance. She’s obviously not stupid; her plight must result, then, from her arrogance.6 As we use the term in this section, not every disjunctive syllogism is valid. The argument She was either arrogant or stupid. She was arrogant. Therefore she was not stupid. is an example of what may be called an invalid disjunctive syllogism. We read- ily see that, even if the premise were true, she may have been arrogant and stu- pid. The truth of one disjunct of a disjunction does not imply the falsehood of the other disjunct, because both disjuncts of a disjunction can be true. We have M07_COPI1396_13_SE_C07.QXD 10/16/07 9:18 PM Page 299 7.7 Disjunctive and Hypothetical Syllogisms 299 a valid disjunctive syllogism, therefore, only where the categorical premise contradicts one disjunct of the disjunctive premise and the conclusion affirms the other disjunct of the disjunctive premise. An objection might be raised at this point, based on such an argument as the following: Either Smith is in New York or Smith is in Paris. Smith is in New York. Therefore Smith is not in Paris. Here the categorical premise affirms one disjunct of the stated disjunction, and the conclusion contradicts the other disjunct, yet the conclusion seems to fol- low validly. Closer analysis shows, however, that the stated disjunction plays no role in the argument. The conclusion follows enthymematically from the second, categorical premise, with the unexpressed additional premise being the obviously true proposition that “Smith cannot be both in New York and in Paris,” which can be stated in disjunctive form as Either Smith is not in New York or Smith is not in Paris. When this tacit premise is supplied and the superfluous original disjunction is discarded, the resulting argument is easily seen to be a valid disjunctive syllo- gism. The apparent exception is not really an exception, and the objection is groundless. The second kind of compound proposition we consider is the conditional (or hypothetical) proposition, an example of which is “If the first native is a politician, then the first native lies.” A conditional proposition contains two component propositions: The one following the “if” is the antecedent, and the one following the “then” is the consequent. A syllogism that contains condi- tional propositions exclusively is called a pure hypothetical syllogism; for example, If the first native is a politician, then he lies. If he lies, then he denies being a politician. Therefore if the first native is a politician, then he denies being a politician. In this argument it can be observed that the first premise and the conclusion have the same antecedent, that the second premise and the conclusion have the same consequent, and that the consequent of the first premise is the same as the antecedent of the second premise. It should be clear that any pure hy- pothetical syllogism whose premises and conclusion have their component parts so related is a valid argument. A syllogism that has one conditional premise and one categorical premise is called a mixed hypothetical syllogism. Two valid forms of the mixed M07_COPI1396_13_SE_C07.QXD 10/16/07 9:18 PM Page 300 300 CHAPTER 7 Syllogisms in Ordinary Language hypothetical syllogism have been given special names. The first is illus- trated by If the second native told the truth, then only one native is a politician. The second native told the truth. Therefore only one native is a politician. Here the categorical premise affirms the antecedent of the conditional premise, and the conclusion affirms its consequent. Any argument of this form is valid and is said to be in the affirmative mood or modus ponens (from the Latin ponere, meaning “to affirm”). One must not confuse the valid form modus ponens with the clearly invalid form displayed by the following argument: If Bacon wrote Hamlet, then Bacon was a great writer. Bacon was a great writer. Therefore Bacon wrote Hamlet. This argument differs from modus ponens in that its categorical premise af- firms the consequent, rather than the antecedent, of the conditional premise. Any argument of this form is said to commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent. The other valid form of mixed hypothetical syllogism is illustrated by: If the one-eyed prisoner saw two red hats, then he could tell the color of the hat on his own head. The one-eyed prisoner could not tell the color of the hat on his own head. Therefore the one-eyed prisoner did not see two red hats. Here the categorical premise denies the consequent of the conditional prem- ise, and the conclusion denies its antecedent. Any argument of this form is valid and is said to be in the form modus tollens (from the Latin tollere, mean- ing “to deny”). One must not confuse the valid form modus tollens with the clearly invalid form displayed by the following argument: If Carl embezzled the college funds, then Carl is guilty of a felony. Carl did not embezzle the college funds. Therefore Carl is not guilty of a felony. This argument differs from modus tollens in that its categorical premise denies the antecedent, rather than the consequent, of the conditional premise. Any argument of this form is said to commit the fallacy of denying the antecedent. M07_COPI1396_13_SE_C07.QXD 11/13/07 9:23 AM Page 301 7.7 Disjunctive and Hypothetical Syllogisms 301 OVERVIEW Principal Kinds of Syllogisms 1. Categorical syllogisms, which contain only categorical propositions af- firming or denying the inclusion or exclusion of categories. Example: All M is P. All S is M. Therefore all S is P. 2. Disjunctive syllogisms, which contain a compound, disjunctive (or alter- native) premise asserting the truth of at least one of two alternatives, and a premise that asserts the falsity of one of those alternatives. Example: Either P is true or Q is true. P is not true. Therefore Q is true. 3. Hypothetical syllogisms, which contain one or more compound, hy- pothetical (or conditional) propositions, affirming that if one of its components (the antecedent) is true then the other of its components (the consequent) is true. Two subtypes are distinguished: A. Pure hypothetical syllogisms contain conditional propositions only. Example: If P is true, then Q is true. If Q is true, then R is true. Therefore if P is true, then R is true. B. Mixed hypothetical syllogisms contain both a conditional premise and a categorical premise. If the categorical premise affirms the truth of the antecedent of the conditional premise, and the consequent of that condi- tional premise is the conclusion of the argument, the form is valid and is called modus ponens. Example: If P is true, then Q is true. P is true. Therefore Q is true. If the categorical premise affirms the falsity of the consequent of the conditional premise, and the falsity of the antecedent of that (Continued) M07_COPI1396_13_SE_C07.QXD 10/16/07 9:18 PM Page 302 302 CHAPTER 7 Syllogisms in Ordinary Language conditional premise is the conclusion of the argument, the form is valid and is called modus tollens. Example: If P is true, then Q is true. Q is false. Therefore P is false. EXERCISES Identify the form and discuss the validity or invalidity of each of the follow- ing arguments. EXAMPLE 1. If a man could not have done otherwise than he in fact did, then he is not responsible for his action. But if determinism is true, it is true of every action that the agent could not have done otherwise. Therefore, if determinism is true, no one is ever responsible for what he does.